This time the image is a bit lower quality so it isn’t pixel perfect but it’s not hard to work with it, also this array from the alleged official report seems to be missing the 11mm air gap between the textolite and outer rolled armor plate but the position and size of the textolite and inner rolled armor composition is still accurate so it’s not much of a big deal IMO.
Still though the entire mounting setup for the ERA is nothing like what’s in game and, again, the plate between the two layers of Duplet ERA is measured at 50mm thick
Yeah the ERA floating on top of the plates and touching the plates above it is complete nonsense. The ERA is placed on the bottom plate with about a 10mm air gap above it.
Also nonsense is the 35mm structural steel. All available reports, factory images and the blueprint shows 50mm RHA.
Here is a funny image I found on the russian forum:
man it’s super annoying trying to find images of the mounting pieces for the ERA since every image it seems is either the ERA fully assembled or only with hatches to remove the Duplet bricks removed.
I also wanted to check out some of the sources for information and have PDFs of these two literary sources though I didn’t find anything specific about the armor composition on the Oplot, possibly because the way they were made they aren’t searchable PDFs
Теория и конструкция танка.– Т. 10. Кн. 2 Комплексная защита
Защита танков — В.А. Григорян, Е.Г. Юдин, И.И. Терехин и др.; Под ред. В.А. Григоряна
Edit: I just noticed on the image above with the ERA brick sliding out of the cavity it’s mounted in, the brick itself and the plate beneath it are at the same angle in the image and you can clearly see there’s a difference in size between the two
This is a diagram of Nizh ERA module. For shaped charges to be effective, they need to be focused on the target, this has to be a few mm above the charges, so it does not make any sense to mount the ERA right on the top plate.
Here is the effect of XSCHKV-19 (less powerful than XSCHKV-34 which is used on the UFP and Turret front) on a 20mm plate. It’s completely penetrated:
It’s very likely that the 50mm plate on top of the second layer of ERA in BM Oplot will not have much effect on its effectiveness against APFSDS.
Idk if you understood what he meant: the main reason why second layer of Nizh would be significantly weaker than the first one is 50mm (or whatever mm greater than 15) plate reducing the power of the said layer.
The first layer would be more or less effective because it only has to go through 15mm HHRHA cover (excluding the thin box of insert itself) instead of 35mm construction steel/HHRHR that would significantly reduce the efficiency of heat charges from “knives” (as to reach the round, most heat jets have to go through plating that covers the layer).
And the main argument from devs was that second layer would be weaker than the first one under any circumstances, was the second layer 35mm construction steel / rubber or 50mm HHRHA which is much sturdier and denser.
Idk how much credibility we can take from the photos alone (because devs take only sources from manufacturers themselves or certified researchers/testers), but if a “knife” from model 19 (ХСЧКВ-19) insert (which is smaller and weaker) can cut through a fair amount of steel, provided there is an N amount of space separating the layer of ERA and cover like btvt explained himself, model 34 should have a much, much greater efficency due to sheer amount of extra explosive and larger hollow charge.
Thus the “knife” from model 34 under 50mm or 35mm cover should have a greater efficency against KE projectiles (and technically CE) as the separating plate does not affect second layer efficency as much as devs (and brochures?) state.
But again, the problems are:
photographical evidence won’t be accepted if made by third parties (I believe Gaijin doesn’t accept such sources)
there should be a proof solid enough to state there is enough air gap between the separating plate and second layer to prove the efficency of model 34 insert to be much greater than that of stated / modeled by devs.
Depends on what plate in question was penetrated. From photos alone you can tell those ain’t RHA, let alone HHRHA, so I’d very much doubt ХСЧКВ-19 has power enough to cut through the same 20mm RHA plating.
True. But this bit is just a heads up for those who want to prove “how little exactly does it provide”, which again might reinforce ones opinion on efficency of said armor
That’s pretty impressive for such a small shaped charge, it looks like the penetration depth is about 100mm or so for XSCHKV-19. I could only imagine how powerful XSCHKV-34 would be in comparison.
My biggest complaint with there not being images or “official documented information” about the ERA being mounted is that it would be clear and easy to see how it was mounted and the thicknesses of the plates for each layer of the armor but everything is either “speculative” or information, diagrams and accounts from third party sources
I think a bug report could be made about the Duplet bricks being mounted on the wrong part of the whole assembly given there’s so many diagrams of how it’s assembled, pictures taken of the ERA in the brackets mounted to the bottom plate for each layer and the explanations of how it’s supposed to work with the requirement of a standoff distance between the brick and the plates above it but it feels like there’s an automated system on the bug report forums set up to instantly reject any BM Oplot bug reports and either tag it with not enough info or not a bug
Well this is a 20mm plate as stated. SRC says prolly not RHA. I can’t deny or confirm tho. Regardless, it is much better than I thought. 34 would be very effective, this is why we see close to 80% penetration reduction.
We have more than enough information to make pretty safe educated guess, mainly this photo alone is enough
Gaijin are just blatant in their bias.
HHRA alone in ingame model is responsible for 417 mm of protection at 68 angle, while Gaijin in response to my report stated that reference total protection(including other layers and ERA) is 620, that leaves us with 203 mm of proptection from ERA + textolite + separation layer between ERA. And they somehow don’t see problem there claiming “wrong calculations”.
Yea, idk why I’m even trying to think of this rationally.
It’s a vehicle that Russia made that has dozens of variants that they tried to improve on it yet it always had marginal performance compared to most western tanks that Ukraine, a small now recently sovereign nation took and objectively made better in almost every way giving it better mobility with an improved engine and much better transmission, better situational awareness with parts like a commanders panoramic sight with the ability for thermal imaging and much better protection with the layered Duplet ERA which should be able to stop the majority of projectiles from doing damage to it frontally and within a ±30° frontal arc of the vehicle along with other things like a better FCS and the newer welded turret instead of the old cast turret.
But were never gonna see it as it should be because Russian vehicles other nations made better then the original are either not allowed to be in any other nation or as effective as they realistically are.
For some reason, high caliber HESH rounds (150mm+) can kill the BM Oplot anywhere, idk if this is due to armour holes or what but at least on BVM and T-90M the UFP cannot be penetrated by such rounds. HESH should not be able to penetrate through composite armour like it does here.
